Linksys Range Extender Question

Thanks for some newbie help.

Is there such a thing as a firmware upgrade for the Linksys Range
Extender?


If I configure my Range Extender to have a different SSID than the
WRT54GS router (which I was told was a good idea), should I also change
the channel or does it not matter?


Thanks,
Patty

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Thanks for some newbie help.
>
> Is there such a thing as a firmware upgrade for the Linksys Range
> Extender?
>
>
> If I configure my Range Extender to have a different SSID than the
> WRT54GS router (which I was told was a good idea), should I also
change
> the channel or does it not matter?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Patty

For Firmware:
Go to the Linksys website and click on support. Select Technical
Support, Click on
Product Pages, Select Driver.Firmware in the dropdown box, then select
your product
model.

A range extender is a repeater and must be on the same channel as the
Router.
I see no reason in having 2 separate SSIDs, if you want to roam around
the house
and stay connected then stick with one SSID, otherwise you will
disconnect and
reconnect everytime you get in or out of range of one or the other.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>Thanks for some newbie help.
>
>Is there such a thing as a firmware upgrade for the Linksys Range
>Extender?

Linksys provides firmware upgrades. I don't know of any 3rd party
firmware.

>If I configure my Range Extender to have a different SSID than the
>WRT54GS router (which I was told was a good idea), should I also change
>the channel or does it not matter?

The channel must be the same as the AP you wish it to associate
with.

The AP association is specified by the channel, the MAC of the
AP, and the WEP key.

The WRE54G ignores the SSID it is configured with, and will
automatically change to use the SSID of the AP.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

Thank you . I figures out there was a Linksys firmware upgrade and how
to do it. Duh. Dumb me.

Linksys told me to use a different SSID I think because they felt you
might pick up the weaker signal by accident. But you are right if you
start roaming around your house, you would have to reconnect.
Duh....Not my day for thinking.

Thanks
Patty

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>Thank you . I figures out there was a Linksys firmware upgrade and how
>to do it. Duh. Dumb me.

They don't make it exactly obvious though! Of course there are
so few configuration options available that when I did it I just
clicked on the one and only thing I hadn't tried, and there it
was... :-)

>Linksys told me to use a different SSID I think because they felt you

I'm not sure what the previous firmware load did, but it
certainly makes no difference, with the latest firmware, what
you enter for the SSID.

>might pick up the weaker signal by accident. But you are right if you
>start roaming around your house, you would have to reconnect.
>Duh....Not my day for thinking.

Well, the other side of that is the situation where you have a
permanently located client which just happens to be in a fringe
area for both the AP and the repeater. Using the same SSID you
cannot select which one it connects to, and it might well flip
back and forth between them with odd results. If the two had
different SSID's the client would be able to chose one or the
other. (That can be done when a WRT54G is used as a repeater
with 3rd party firmware.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Well, the other side of that is the situation where you have a
> permanently located client which just happens to be in a fringe
> area for both the AP and the repeater. Using the same SSID you
> cannot select which one it connects to

With the facilities of WinXP, that is correct. But most (?) wireless
card utilities allow explicit selection between access points with
the same SSID by using the BSSID.

> and it might well flip
> back and forth between them with odd results.

I've not seen this in practice. Most (?) wireless card drivers seem
reluctant to change...

> If the two had
> different SSID's the client would be able to chose one or the
> other.

This is what I do in mixed 802.11g and 802.11b networks - use
different APs with SSID specific to each. It improves performance,
even though it would be possible to have a single large Extended
Service Set.

> (That can be done when a WRT54G is used as a repeater
> with 3rd party firmware.)

Ah. I didn't know that - many thanks. Is this the Sveasoft firmware,
or a different variety?

Kind regards

--

Richard Perkin
To email me, change the AT in the address below
richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com

It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

Richard Perkin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> Well, the other side of that is the situation where you have a
>> permanently located client which just happens to be in a fringe
>> area for both the AP and the repeater. Using the same SSID you
>> cannot select which one it connects to
>
>With the facilities of WinXP, that is correct. But most (?) wireless
>card utilities allow explicit selection between access points with
>the same SSID by using the BSSID.

My experience has been that my client hardware can be given the
MAC address of the AP... and it will be totally ignored if
there is another AP with the same SSID and a better signal!

That is with Broadcom based hardware, YMMV of course.

>> and it might well flip
>> back and forth between them with odd results.
>
>I've not seen this in practice. Most (?) wireless card drivers seem
>reluctant to change...

One example I've seen was where an AP and a repeater were both
within range. The client was directly across the road from the
AP, while the repeater was down the road several yards. Usually
the AP would have a 20 dB better signal than the repeater;
however, frequently a vehicle driving on the road between the AP
and the client would result in a path fade, and the client would
switch to the repeater, with a barely but usable signal.

Indeed the client was reluctant to switch... and would remain
associated with the repeater until its signal would also take a
severe enough hit. In the mean time, performance would be
seriously degraded compared to what would have been available
from the AP (the repeater of course would at best have half the
data rate).

In essence, it avoided the momentary hit by switching, which
indeed resulted in avoiding a total loss of signal perhaps, but
also provided noticeably lower performance for a significant
length of time too.

>> If the two had
>> different SSID's the client would be able to chose one or the
>> other.
>
>This is what I do in mixed 802.11g and 802.11b networks - use
>different APs with SSID specific to each. It improves performance,
>even though it would be possible to have a single large Extended
>Service Set.
>
>> (That can be done when a WRT54G is used as a repeater
>> with 3rd party firmware.)
>
>Ah. I didn't know that - many thanks. Is this the Sveasoft firmware,
>or a different variety?

I'm pretty sure I've tried it with both HyperWRT and Sveasoft firmware,
but can only positively recall checking that with Sveasoft.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

Has Linksys allowed for WPA encryption with the range extender yet?

Dave G

"Richard Perkin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Well, the other side of that is the situation where you have a
>> permanently located client which just happens to be in a fringe
>> area for both the AP and the repeater. Using the same SSID you
>> cannot select which one it connects to
>
> With the facilities of WinXP, that is correct. But most (?) wireless
> card utilities allow explicit selection between access points with
> the same SSID by using the BSSID.
>
>> and it might well flip
>> back and forth between them with odd results.
>
> I've not seen this in practice. Most (?) wireless card drivers seem
> reluctant to change...
>
>> If the two had
>> different SSID's the client would be able to chose one or the
>> other.
>
> This is what I do in mixed 802.11g and 802.11b networks - use
> different APs with SSID specific to each. It improves performance,
> even though it would be possible to have a single large Extended
> Service Set.
>
>> (That can be done when a WRT54G is used as a repeater
>> with 3rd party firmware.)
>
> Ah. I didn't know that - many thanks. Is this the Sveasoft firmware,
> or a different variety?
>
> Kind regards
>
> --
>
> Richard Perkin
> To email me, change the AT in the address below
> richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com
>
> It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
> is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
> It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
> -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

"Dave G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:2SBVd.98505
$(E-Mail Removed):

> Has Linksys allowed for WPA encryption with the range extender yet?

That simple question has a relatively complex answer...

The fundamental issue is the the strict definition and
standardisation of WDS, Wireless Distribution System. While WDS is
described in IEEE 802.1 it is not explicit, and implementations have
differed between manufacturers. There is currently an IEEE task group
looking at this as part of its work on mesh networks (TGs or 802.11s)

Since WPA encryption with TKIP uses the MAC address to derive (part
of) the dymanic key, and in a WDS there are multiple MAC addresses,
this leads to what might politely be called 'confusion' as the key is
dynamically changed. In general, WPA will fail when used across a WDS
link.

Currently it is only likely to work with compatible firmware and a
compatible wireless chipset. I understand that the Sveasoft third
party firmware for the WRT54G allows it, and also the Apple Airport
Extreme Base Station. Both these are based on a Broadcom chipset.

All encryption-related issues are closely linked to the hardware,
since the encryption algorithms are numerically intensive and rely on
processing at the hardware level rather than in the general purpose
cpu within a router's (or other device's) communications processor.
And Broadcom has implemented WDS functions in its hardware and
reference firmware, which makes it easier for vendors with Broadcom-
based products...

So even if it were confirmed that Linksys had implemented a 'fix', it
would likely be highly product specific.

Hope this helps - anyone else?

--

Richard Perkin
To email me, change the AT in the address below
richard.perkinATmyrealbox.com

It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

On 4 Mar 2005 01:04:14 GMT, Richard Perkin <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

(...)
>Since WPA encryption with TKIP uses the MAC address to derive (part
>of) the dymanic key, and in a WDS there are multiple MAC addresses,
>this leads to what might politely be called 'confusion' as the key is
>dynamically changed. In general, WPA will fail when used across a WDS
>link.
>
>Currently it is only likely to work with compatible firmware and a
>compatible wireless chipset. I understand that the Sveasoft third
>party firmware for the WRT54G allows it, and also the Apple Airport
>Extreme Base Station. Both these are based on a Broadcom chipset.

Good explanation. See:
http://www.sveasoft.com/content/view/3/1/
The 18th line down proclaims "WPA over WDS" support. No clue which of
the 4ea MAC addresses in WPA they use as part of the WPA-PSK
(pre-shared key) or whether its does both WPA with RADIUS or just
WPA-PSK.

>Hope this helps - anyone else?

Nope. I've never actually implimented a WDS bridge as a repeater. I
tend to favour two back to back wireless bridges on different channels
running full duplex. Therefore, no store and forward bandwidth
reduction. More expensive, more complicated, more antennas, but twice
as fast.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS